Editor's opinion: Something's fishy about this red snapper deal

Something's fishy about the deal that led to an extended season for recreational red snapper fishing in the Gulf of Mexico.

All sides agree that it was an extraordinary move for the U.S. Commerce secretary to get so personally involved in adding 39 weekend fishing days this summer to what was supposed to be a three-day season that ended June 3.

I agree with some of what interests on both sides of the ongoing debate are saying.

Conservationists are right in saying the action lacks science and circumvents normal processes that involve public hearings and input from all sides. It was, as the Environmental Defense Fund suggests, a "back-room deal" negotiated by politicians and bureaucrats to the benefit of one special interest, recreational fishermen, to the potential detriment of the fish they love.

And I empathize with the frustration anglers have felt as they have watched seasons and catch limits shrink to protect a species they and state wildlife agencies say has rebounded sufficiently enough to allow greater access. NOAA Fisheries' decision earlier this year to limit the red snapper season in federal waters to a shortest-ever three days left lots of recreational fishermen feeling like their voices have not been heard.

For years, it's been a war among conservationists, charter fishermen, recreational interests, science and politics.

Amid all of this, there is common ground:

All of these interests want to ensure red snapper stocks remain healthy. No one benefits from the kind of overfishing that threatened red snapper in the 1980s and resulted in the increased protections in the first place.
Nobody is satisfied with the way the fishery is managed now, though reasons and solutions vary. Interests dispute the way the fish are counted toward yearly catch quotas. State agencies and anglers say there are more fish than the federal numbers indicate. Everyone agrees the species has rebounded, though interests disagree on how many red snapper need to be swimming in the Gulf before restrictions are loosened further. States want more control over the fishery, claiming they can manage it better than the feds. Some environmentalists and others worry turning over management to the states will invite even more politics and increase the risk of overfishing.
After years of this discord, I understand why Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross contends that the first red snapper season in a decade coordinated together by the feds and the five Gulf states might be worth the risk of short-term overfishing that slows red snapper recovery.

But the way he and the politicians went about it leaves a fishy smell in the air. They skirted the normal, open processes that include hearings by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and input from all sides, including the public at large. And by doing so, they injected more distrust into a system that already has enough.

Though I don't agree with every point, I was impressed overall by the Coastal Conservation Association of Louisiana's response to Ross' decision to extend the season. Sure, it's a victory, the group says in an extended statement on its website, but it might be short-lived.

"This intervention by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce does not address the fundamentally flawed federal management system that got us here in the first place," the group says. "There are concerns that by NOAA Fisheries’ own peculiar methods of accounting, recreational anglers may already be over their quota this year in just the three days we were allowed to fish before this extension. How far over our quota will NOAA say we went over after an additional 39 weekend days? What will happen when NOAA’s regulations shut down the red snapper fishery until anglers 'pay back' this overage? How many years might it be before we can fish for red snapper again? One year? Two years? Five? Are environmental groups just waiting to sue and claim that an overage proves state management of red snapper is a failure?"

Great questions that show how high the level of frustration and distrust has built up on all sides.

My brain tells me the way out is through compromise, good science and open public decision-making. My gut tells me that's naive.

-- Executive Editor Keith Magill can be reached at 857-2201 or keith.magill@houmatoday.com. Follow him on Twitter @CourierEditor.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.